20021001 Ver 1_Complete File_20020624

oWwt
VIIS °t4 ?le
Sah d ?b?
uu
r! ,yam -
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
'r ,SSu?
C
1 ss?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 21, 1999 [ Q
TO: Ms. C ndi Bell
MEMORANDUM Y m I JAN 2 1 1999
DWQ - DENR

WETLANDS GROUP
FROM: W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager NYATER UALITY S-CT'
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for,the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3435 Chowan No. 4 SR 1207 Bill Goodwin
-3217 Onslow No. 21 SR 1503 Bill Goodwin
B-3378 Wayne No. 34 NC 111 Karen Orthner
-3538 Wayne No. 296 SR 1222 Karen Orthner
B-3539 Wayne No. 164 SR 1571 Karen Orthner
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
February 18, 1999 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. in the order shown
above. You may provide us with your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the
meeting, or e-mail them to [e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
WDG/bg
Attachments
N-s a-1-33'$
R e- (ft 4A
C?(00-q '-< -.
? Ns
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3539
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP -1571(3)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2331401
DIVISION: Four
COUNTY: Wayne
ROUTE: SR 1571
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 164 on SR 1571 over Stoney Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Northeast Goldsboro Quad Sheet
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 371,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 31,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 402,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 3000 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 5100 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 3 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 18 foot
pavement
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 11.0 METERS WIDTH 7.7 METERS
36.0 FEET 25.3 FEET
COMMENTS:
11571
111
O
S
1003
Langston
"0 1642
OUj 1623
0 1624
e l
1622 0 O? 1651
O?
/."- % 1664
1556 I_- 1672 S
1673
157 1
1620 yio
"'" Bridge No.164
1571
1556
1674
1003
1638
NEW HOPE `
(UNINC.)
POP. 6,685
1658
dl
0 1660
45 1645
1663
.f
O
.03'09 W ?2N? 01
1655- p , O6 1652 00
1635
2q
1570
1570
l5
e
NII-I
'
Korth Carolina
%. Department of Transportation
g
Division of Highways
10 1
: Planning & Environmental Branch
"
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 164 on SR 1571
Over Stoner Creek
B-3539
Figure 1
...... •. Gay
f .Cem
eo Cem
• _\`,o
c/`
PY
-38
Cem o
38_0
Waltham •??`?? ???.
- _ _ `Cem= ! G??
11Z v _?_ / - Cem
?• /? Div ?j// Traler?? _'.
.
=Cem Park
,? C?.?\3?` ?' /?;• i?. Iro'?. ?%.J-? ' •? \\, J _ = - ? - _ ----- 36-
--- -
40 ao Best Grove ?• -?? • ?• j
_Sh
t 1 % Cem
ettling (152 35,0Sea - r/ ?' % // • '. ;Langqpn
onds J _ y
100? m Sl l ' ?", l (? 'l
urn - i -l1'\` V 'L`•;' • - - 4° - -J'Ch Ricky
Greenleaf
>>;
re
fa ?`-_ _ ? ?/ Ali / ? .- .` ?} 1 ? '??. ?.I_??. I ? /•' .• 39.5-'fhpro • _:C /(%?/'
1563 \ \\ ( '{ .?,?' Paoos '? / -%? /.
-/• \• \• `I ( I ??? ? % of r ??'% i - i
?;` ? •36.5-
•(1570 •I?.
GreeCeaf, :Cem: /. \? '
f // \
Wayne s • I'
ICem /Community'°"
153" I v College
38
?? ?' 1556
37.5 \/?? .. •- _` _ ' - 1 . .
1629,
3yp. Co
Y ?. • ?? _ ?e ?' \?btem ospit I ya ` /-wag ?15657.5
cock. f-
ayne
k :Community /0
ollege C
• ? i ? c ?? .?_ ?-- _ \ ?` Park i .
i i
-41, Trail-
` A J • J
L? \ BANK GBOINAI I -? II' _?
C B r.. X560 - s Quail
" y f7
ANp North briv `? •-^7 ._Ut ..
Air
WAT Michael F. Easley, Governor
0?
?9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
ot QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
`
yr Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality

fl `?
July 3, 2002
DWQ No. 021001
Wayne County
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: Wayne County, Replacement of Bridge No. 164 on SR 1571 over Reedy Creek Branch on SR 1571 in Wayne,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1571(3), State Project No. 8.2331401, TIP B-3539.
APPROVAL of NEUSE RIVER BUFFER RULES AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact 0.16 acres of protected riparian buffers
for the purpose of replacing Bridge Number 164 on SR 1571 over Reedy Creek Branch on SR 1571 in Wayne County.
The project shall be constructed according to your application dated June 21, 2002 and any_conditions listed below.
This approval shall act as your Authorization Certificate as required within the Neuse River Area Protection Rules
(15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application dated June 21, 2002. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is
sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this authorization and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below.
? For the all construction impacts that do not represent permanent fill in protected riparian buffers, the site shall be
graded to its preconstruction contours and revegetated with native vegetation.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This authorization and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the "No Practical Alternatives" determination
required in 15A NCAC 2B .0233(8). If you have any questions, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerel ,
limek, P.E. "
S?aZ
Off-
cc: US Army Corps of Engineers Wasington Field Office
DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
CAncdot\TIP B-3539\wqc\021001buffer certification.doc

N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 [phone]
Customer Service: 1 800'623-7748
d,w $iAT[ a?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 21, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers ,
Regulatory Field Office 021001,
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele
NCDOT Coordinator
f`p
?y
dia$
F
4J&
olow
R LOLM
W TY SECTim
LYNDo TIPPE"fT
SECRETARY
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 164 over
Reedy Branch on SR 1571, Wayne County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-
1571(3), State Project No. 8.23 TIP Project No.
B-3539.
Dear Madam:
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. The document states that Bridge No. 164 will be replaced with a th box /
culvert. However, since the publication of the report, the d urtl
minimize impacts to wetlands. We will now replace e existing bridge with a brid e. e new
bridge will have two twelve foot lanes with 8 foot grass shou ers an 11 foot grass shoulders
where guardrail is required. The typical section of the bridge is 39 feet (ft) from face of curb to
face of curb and 42 ft out to out. Also noted in the attached Natural Resources Technical Report,
Stoney Creel: is also known as Reedy Branch and is referred to by that name by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) and on the USGS topographic map.
Demolition: Bridge No. 164 has two spans totaling 36 ft (11 m) in length. The bridge
deck and railings are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed of timber. The
bridge railings and substructure will be removed without dropping components into Waters of
the United States. All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition
to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Wetlands adjacent to the bridge will be impacted by the proposed project. These impacts
are 0.004 ac of fill in wetlands and 0.015 ac of mechanized clearing. This project is located in
the Neuse River Basin: therefore the regulations pertaining to the Neuse River Buffer Rules will
apply. There are 0.09 ac of allowable impacts to Buffer Zone One, and 0.07 ac of allowable
impact to Buffer Zone Two.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBsITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
aX' r
't-der to minimize impacts to wetlands, buffer zones and the stream channel from
ldge No. 164 the following actions have been implemented: a bridge is being built instead of a
t boxncul..vert and preformed scour holes will be put in to provide non-erosive velocity and diffuse
fl&vti, through the buffer. Through these design changes, impacts to buffers have been minimized
t " to'the furthest extent possible in accordance with (5A NCAC 2B .0233(8).
This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting
an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 in accordance with the
Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61, Number 241. We anticipate a 401
General Certification number 3361 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
.0501(a) we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records. We request an
authorization certificate from DWQ under Section 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (7) (b) of the Neuse
River Buffer Rules.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Rachelle
Beauregard at (919) 733-1 142.
Sincerely,
M "
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager
PDEA-Office of Natural Environment
w/ attachment:
Mr. John Dornev, NC Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Deborah Barbour, PE, Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Ms. Susan Cauley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.H. Trogdon, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Ms. Karen Capps, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
2
13
.
.
U
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SCALE
.0 .25 .5 Mile
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2331401 (B-3539)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE No. 164 ON SR 1571
OVER REEDY BRANCH
SHEET I OF 5 6/12/
I BUFFER LEGEND I
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
vw? ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
\\\
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
® MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
- BZ - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
- BZ1 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 f t (9.2m)
- BZ2 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 ft (6.1m)
--? -? FLOW DIRECTION
TB TOP OF BANK
WE - EDGE OF WATER
- -C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
A PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL- - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -0- - - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
]::? PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54" PIPES
& ABOVE

SINGLE TREE
(, J- WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
? PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2331401 (B-3539)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE No. 164 ON SR 1671
OVER REEDY CREEK
SHEET v - OF .S 7 / 12 / 02
Q' I I
3
I o

Imo' I
z
I z
O o
I I
z ?

i O
-'
OUZ

W I W I
+ 1
(X H 0 w ?ow?!w
o w z [-.
J

?= o000
O? Ian

i ?
P C 6 UA c?
v, o 0
o= PoQO w w w a
?
Q
?;
¢c?i mo3c
av+ O N
I l i
I + ?
Q
iv?i mo3v
a?Ml
Q A Oa
? m X +a?

O to - m
I
I I?
I I
I X
\
\
X28 I I O \
\ \

\ X28\ \ tic
\ O
3

\
yJiVy
\
???
flo \ \ WCL Wa
°
dg
/ y _
??` - t

` N w
W
J J
\ Nm co
N
\
?,

03 ~3
\
/<> 00 00
-----?f- \ -----/ oa oa
\

X
? `/28
\
V

\
+
\ /??

Q
POPO ?I
? \ i
lL?
CU 0003V
\ \
\ \
Q
?
a?n
?
\ \ \ I
? ' \ 3
I Y/J
O
,LL-1
x m k zza_ .
3 I of I
I
-?
' o
I
+
x
x ?-J ? .? , ? I r-I I O

W
I I,
I
o

X ? \

--------- I I I \\ 04
N
O
N

F-
c-4 _
Z
LL
O
?`
Q (n
M Z
LL U
O 3:
a2 z.-w

0
CD
z?? p?ao
Q
S U ?? a d >-
¢
LL
W N W W
F
O Z W
- W
W
Z
0?
QF-W W w L) CO (D Lu
?
0
-a
OD O°'

Z
F
W
W

S
y

CL
m W
?

LL

U.

F- LL J O J O

L i l L i l L

Z z
, O v
W m
w

Q
m
a ^
W
W p
N
O
O
a
O
--
F
W
J o

Q N
O
Z ?
H ?

O
O
W
Z ?
O v

Q
Q
N
o o
0
w ? M M
F- . w O
? U
J
o
0
0
N

N O Cl)

N O
O O

U W ^
z?
?
o
Q O N

? U

LJ.I a
?
W s

}
~ Z
m Q N
OU X X

U
Z 0 o
` r° rn
Q O ? r
_
W
N
U
W
7
?
} O
U
020
m

F
U
O Q
Z
N

N

-
? Z
O LL
ci CL W O
H
Project No. 8.2331401 (B-3539)
Property Owner List
Site Parcel Name Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg

O Alton Waters &
Peggy Otero 1271 Tommys Rd.
27534
N
C
.
Goldsboro,
.
M 1241 Pg 750
Dawn Leroy 391 Woodpeck Rd.
O M 1782 Pg 32 Goldsboro, N.C. 27530

1

3
O
Alfr
Mary ed Barnes & Barnes

1309 Tommys Rd.
Goldsboro, N.C. 27534
M 861 Pg 826
Glenn H. Carter P.O. Box 10505
O DB 1714 Pg 742 Goldsboro, N.C. 27532
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT. 8.2331401 (B-3539)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE No. 164 ON SR 1571
OVER REEDY BRANCH
SHEET S OF 5 6/ 12 / 02
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A.
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-3539
8.2331401
BRSTP-1571(3)
021001
C.
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 164 over Stoney Creek
in Wayne County. The bridge will be replaced with a three-barrel [12 ft
(3.6 m) by 10 ft (3.0 m)] reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately
the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The
proposed roadway cross section will include two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes
with 8-foot (2.4-m) shoulders. Guardrail will be installed where
warranted. Shoulder width will increase to 11 feet (3.3 m) where
guardrail is installed. The total project length is approximately 700 feet
13.4 m). Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during
construction.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 164 has a sufficiency rating of 34.5 out of a possible 100.
The deck and substructure of this 42-year old bridge are in poor
condition. Therefore, the bridge needs to be replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are
circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding
auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitatin , and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 41Z improvements
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through
lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge; auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g Providing driveway pipes
g. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through
lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects
including the installation of ramp metering control devices and
lighting.

a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and
pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including, relocation and/or
realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail
retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade
railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitatin bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, ender systems, and minor structural
imrovements
O Repplacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited
use of right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have
significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes
where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning
and located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle
anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings
and ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional
land are required and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
2
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for
projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and
where there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding
community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance
land acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act.
Hardship and protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not
limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for
planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until
the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 300,000
Off-site Detour Upgrade* $ 70,000
Right of Way 40,000
Total $ 410,000
*Off-site Detour Upgrade:
The off-site detour route available for detouring traffic along
surrounding roads during construction includes 0.70 miles (1.1 km) of SR
1570 (see Figure 1). According to the Division Construction Engineer for
Division Four, SR 1570 needs to be widened to 22 feet (6.6 m) and
resurfaced in order to maintain safety standards in detouring traffic.
According to the District Engineer for Wayne County, the estimated cost
for widening SR 1570 from 19 feet (5.8 m) to 22 feet (6.6 m) and
resurfacing 0.70 miles (1.1 km) of the road is a proximately $70,000. The
total estimated cost of the proposed alternate $410,000) remains less than
the cost of an alternate including the maintenance of traffic on-site
($750,000).
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 3000 vpd
Year 2025 - 5100 vpd
TTST - 1 %
Dual - 3%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The proposed ty ical cross section will include two 12-foot (3.6-m)
lanes with 8-foot (2.4-mL5 shoulders. The shoulder width will increase to
11 feet (3.3 m) where guardrail is installed.

Design Speed:
50 mph (80 km/h)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Four Construction Office concurs with the
recommendation to replace Bride No. 164 at the existing location while
detouring traffic along surrounding roads on the condition that SR 1570
be resurfaced and widened to 22 feet (6.6 m).
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 164 has two spans totaling 36 feet (11 m) in length. The
bridge deck and railings are composed of concrete. The substructure is
composed of timber. The bridge railings and substructure will be
removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States.
The resulting temporary fill associated with the bridge deck is
approximately 12 yd3.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type
II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique
or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
D
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service
lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
4
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters a X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
roject significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
'Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?

X
(11) Does the roject involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources.
X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
X
(14) Will thefroject require any stream relocations or channel
changes. ?
X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the roject require the relocation of any family or
business
X
.
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any
minority or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is ?
the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or
land use of adjacent property? X
5
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of ?
1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using a
existing roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bride replacement project, will the
bridge be replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be
?
f
ili ?
X
ac
ty
contained on the existing
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/ properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which
are important to history or pre-history? X*
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act
of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
6
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be
provided below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached,
as necessary.)
Item 3 - Species of anadromous fish may utilize streams in the project
study area. The construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be adhered to during
the construction of this project.
*Item 29 - The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended
an archaeological survey for this project. Subsequently, an archaeological
survey report for this project was submitted by Shane Petersen to the
SHPO for review. The survey report stated that no archaeological sites
were located in the project area and recommended a finding of no historic
properties. However, at the time of the survey, NCDOT personnel were
unable to contact the property owners of the fenced-off property to the
west of Reedy Branch to gain entrance to this portion of the Area of
Potential Effect (APE). Due to the high walls, fences, and barbed wire
around this property, access to this area was unobtainable. Consequently,
after right of way has been acquired for this project, the remaining portion
of the APE will be surveyed and an addendum to the archaeological
survey report will be submitted to the SHPO for review.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No
Project Description:
B-3539
8.2331401
BRSTP-1571(3)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 164 over Stoney Creek
in Wayne County. 'The bridge will be replaced with a three-barrel [12 ft
(3.6 m) by 10 ft (3.0 m)] reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately
the same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The
proposed roadway cross section will include two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes
with 8-foot (2.4-m) shoulders. Guardrail will be installed where
warranted. Shoulder width will increase to 11 feet (3.3 m) where
r ardrail is installed. The total project length is approximately 700 feet
3.4 m). Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during
construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
121-222-00
Date
/2-2z- OQ
Date
lz-zi- e5
Date
°l/. P'Ice?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Vic, ), h e 1/
Wayne Elliott, Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Kafen Orthner, Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
I - OZ-01.
Date
C
i
Division Administrator
ederal Highway Administration
8
1
20 1642 '•
1
Uj 1623
1571
.Oe
1624
f
Oh 1651
? 1622
1570

1664 N
1556 1672 ?O

Langston
•
.
?
1673
?O
' S
1
7g
1571
1003 .

1620
Bridge No. 164
,•' 1571
ap
1674
i

1556 i
1570

p? . •27
1
q9 i
' n 1638

1003
NEW HOPE
(UNINC.)
,•' POP. 6,685 ?•?
1658 ?.

' 1660
1645
1645
1663
2N
1
.03 1
? 0
0
•
1655- p , 06 1652 g
??

_-- 1635
2q
North Carolina
?. Department of Transportation
Diuision of Highways
j Planning & Environmental Branch
Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 164 on SR 1571
Over Stoney Creek
W539
Figure 1
Studied Detour Route
STATE a
V. i D
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 14, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen T. Orthner
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook /4)
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge 164 over Stoney
Creek, Wayne County, B-3539, ER 99-8121
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your phone call of July 1, 1999, concerning the information for the
above referenced project.
We have reviewed our maps and files regarding the correct bridge, # 164, and find that
there are no structures of historical or architectural significance in the project area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB: slw
cc: William D. Gilmore
Barbara Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
ICKJ
STATE „
J. ? Q
,Y a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 25, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
DePutY State Histol itr Preservation Officer
st
Re: Archaeological Survey Report, Bridge #164 on SR 1571 over Stoney Creek,
B-3539, Wayne County, ER 99-8121
We have reviewed the subject survey report by Shane C. Peterson and find that the work to date
meets our expectations. However, through, no fault of the field personnel, a significant portion
of the project has yet to be surveyed.
It appears that the property was fenced and inaccessible at the time of the field investigations.
We are, therefore, holding our final comments until the entire area of potential effect has been
surveyed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Roy Shelton, FHwA
Thomas Padgett, NCDOT
Shane C. Peterson, NCDOT
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] • 733-8653
[phone] • 715-2671
[phone] • 715-4801
[phone] • 715-4801
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources CommissionE
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor '
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 25, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects in Wayne County, North Carolina.
TIP Nos. B-3378, B-3538 and B-3539.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 February 25, 1999
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving- the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 February 25, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3378 - Wayne County - Bridge # 34 is located over Nahunta Swamp. With the
recent dam removal in the Neuse River this site now may support anadromous fish.
NCDOT should follow the officially adopted document "Stream Crossing Guidelines
for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water work should be conducted between
February 15 and June 15.
2. B-3538 - Wayne County - Bridge # 296 is over the Neuse River overflow. This site
is known to support anadromous fish. NCDOT should follow the officially adopted
document "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water
work should be conducted between February 15 and June 15.
3. B-3539 - Wayne County - Bridge # 164 is over Stony Creek. This site is known to
support anadromous fish. NCDOT should follow the officially adopted document
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage". No in-water work
should be conducted between February 15 and June 15.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 164
On SR 1571 over Stoney Creek
Wayne County
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-1571(3)
State Project No..8.2331401
T.I.P. No. B-3539
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Division Four Construction Office
Prior to construction, NCDOT will widen 0.70 miles (1.1 km) of SR 1570 from
19 feet (5.8 m) to 22 feet (6.6 m) for its utilization while detouring traffic off-site during
the construction. In addition, NCDOT will strengthen this portion of SR.1570 with l'/2
inches of asphalt.
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division Four Construction, Structure Design
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs)'for `Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of the existing, Bridge No. 164.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, Division Four Construction Office
NCDOT will adhere to the construction guidelines `outlined in "NCDOT Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage" during construction. No in-water
work will be conducted between February 15 and June 15.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT archaeological personnel were unable to contact the property owners of
the fenced-off property to the west of Reedy Branch to gain entrance to this portion of the
Area of Potential Effect (APE) while conducting an archaeological survey. Due to the
high walls, fences, and barbed wire, access to this area was unobtainable.,:Consequently,
after right of way has been acquired for this project, the remaining portion of the APE -
will be surveyed and an addendum to the archaeological survey report will be submitted
to the SHPO for review.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
December 21, 2000
d ySTNg o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 31, 2000
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
From: Matt Haney
Natural Systems Unit
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 164 on SR 1571 over Stoney
Creek (Reedy Branch) in Wayne County. TIP No. B-3539;
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1571(3); State Project No.
8.2331401.
Attention: Karen Orthner, Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project study area, and estimations of impacts
likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information
concerning waters of the United States and protected species is also provided.
c: File
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion for the proposed project.
1,1 Project Description
The project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 164 on SR 1571 over Stoney
Creek in Wayne County. Stoney Creek is also known as Reedy Branch, and is
referred to by that name by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and on the USGS
topographic map. The existing right-of-way (ROW) is ditch line to ditch line. The
proposed right-of-way is 24 m (80 ft). Three alternates are proposed for this project:
Alternate 1-Replace Bridge No. 164 with a 3 barrel [12 ft (width) by 10 ft (height)]
reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. Maintain traffic using a temporary on-site detour structure
consisting of 2 @ 72 in corrugated steel pipes to the south. The temporary structure
should be three ft lower than the existing bridge.
Alternate 2-Replace Bridge No. 164 with a'3 barrel [12 ft (width) by 10 ft (height)]
reinforced concrete box culvert at approximately the same location and roadway elevation
as the existing bridge. Detour traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
Alternate 3-Replace Bridge No. 164 with a pre-cast culvert in approximately the same
location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Detour traffic along surrounding
roads during construction.
Bridge No. 164 has two spans totaling 11 m (36 ft) in length. The bridge deck
and railings are composed of concrete. The substructure is composed of timber. The
bridge railings and substructure will be removed without dropping components into
waters of the U.S. The resulting temporary fill associated with the bridge deck is
approximately 9 m3 (12 yd3).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the
various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to
these resources. Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions are relevant only in the context of existing design concepts.
If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need to be
conducted.
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
'Wayne County
Replace Bridge No. 164 on SR 15 71
(h.er Stoney Creek
B-?O?9
Figure 1
3
1.3 MethodoloQv
Research of the project study area was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Northeast Goldsboro, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the
project study area (1:1200) and Soil Survey of Wayne County (USDA, 1974). Water
resource information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) (2000) and North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) (1993).
Information concerning the occurrence.of federal and state protected species in the study
area was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected and
candidate species (December 20, 1999) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Matt Haney and Chris Murray on December 1, 1999. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of the following observational techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the area bound by proposed ROW limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region
is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map centered on
the project.
1.4 . Qualifications of Investigators
Investigator: Christopher A. Murray
Education: M.S. Coastal Ecology, Univ. North Carolina at Wilmington, North
Carolina
B.S. Zoology, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
Certification: Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1130
Experience: N.C. Dept. of Transportation 1995-present
Environmental Investigations, P.A. 199271.994
Environmental Services, Inc. 1991-1992
Expertise: Wetland Delineation, NEPA Investigations, and Protected Species Surveys
Investigator: Matthew M. Haney
Education: B.S. Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment. North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Experience: N.C. Forest Service May 1998-August 1998
U.S. Forest Service, Center for Forested Wetlands Research May 1997-
August 1997
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed
below. Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Wayne County lies in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Land in the
project study area is characterized as relatively flat. The project is located in a rural area
of Wayne County surrounded by residential houses, upland forests, and swamp forests.
The project study area is located approximately 31 in (100 ft) above mean sea level.
2.1 Soils
Four mapped soil units are located in the project study area and include Johnston
loam, 0-2% slopes, Kalmia loamy sand, 10-15% slopes, Craven sandy loam, 6-10%
slopes, eroded, and Norfolk loamy sand, 6-10% slopes. These soil units are discussed
below:
- Johnston loam, 0-2% slope is a very poorly drained, alluvial soil on flood plains.
Surface runoff is very slow and permeability is moderate. The water table is
usually high with water ponding in low places and very frequent floods. Johnston
loam is a hydric soil.
- Kalmia loamy sand, 10-15% slope is a well-drained soil on short sides of divides.
Surface runoff is rapid and permeability is moderate. Kalmia loamy sand, 10-15%
slope is a non-hydric soil.
- Craven sandy loam, 6-10% slope, eroded is a moderately well drained soil on short
sides of divides. Surface runoff is rapid and permeability is moderately slow.
Craven sandy loam, 6-10% slope, eroded is a non-hydric soil.
- Norfolk loamy sand, 6-10% slope is a well-drained soil on short sides of divides.
Surface runoff is medium and permeability is moderate. Norfolk loamy sand, 6-10%
slope is a non-hydric soil.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources'
relationship to major water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
Z-2.1 Subbasin Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Neuse Mainstem-
Goldsboro to Craven County Watershed (Subbasin 03-04-05) of the Neuse River
Drainage Basin (N.C. Hydrologic Unit 03020202). The Neuse River Basin is the third
largest river basin in the state, covering 6,192 square miles (NCDEHNR, 1993).
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics
The proposed project crosses Stoney Creek (Reedy Branch). There is no defined
channel at the project study site, so width could not by determined. The depth of Stoney
Creek at the project study site is approximately 3-5 ft. The substrate is composed of
sand.
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDENR (2000).
The best usage classification of Stoney Creek (Reedy Branch) (Index No. 27-62) is C
NSW. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) is a
supplemental classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management
due to their being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation.
No water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW's) are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of
the project study area.
2.2.4 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. The Neuse River in this subbasin has maintained
Good-Fair to Good water quality since 1983 (NCDEHNR, 1993).
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality
management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network assessed water quality by
sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout
the state. Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last
from six months to a year. Therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be
overcome until the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different
tolerances to pollution, thereby, long term changes in water quality conditions can be
identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms
(and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass
0
are reflections of long term water quality conditions. There are no BMAN sampling
stations in the project vicinity (NCDEHNR, 1993).
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or
other defined points of discharge. Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no
NPDES sites located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of non-point source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off the ground or
removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters. Excluding road runoff and
sediment/pesticide runoff from cropland in the project vicinity, there were no identifiable
non-point sources that could be observed during the site visit.
2.2.5 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water resources. Land
clearing and grubbing activities from project construction will directly result in soil
erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity in Stoney Creek. These effects
may extend downstream for considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality.
The vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water
temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result in
fluctuating water temperatures. An increase in water temperature results in a decrease in
dissolved oxygen because warmer water holds less oxygen. Streambank vegetation also
stabilizes streambanks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters must
be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with
DEM and DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects
which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters.
There is potential for components of Bridge No. 164 to be dropped into waters of
the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
bridge removal is identified in Section 1.1. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this
bridge.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance of
the stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high during
construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion if exposed soils
are revegetated and streambanks stabilized with native vegetation. Wooded buffers
effectively trap organic nutrients and sediments before they reach water resources. This
will increase long-term water quality and provide wildlife habitat.
Species of anadromous fish may utilize streams in the project study area.
Construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for Aadoomous
Fish Passage must be adhered to for this project. These guidelines are applicable for all
projects crossing perennial or intermittent tributaries (delineated on a USGS topographic
map) located below the fall line. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to
NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing and new highway stream crossing
structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*)
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used
by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Fish, 1960, Martof et al., 1980; Webster et al., 1985; Rohde et
al., 1994; Potter et al., 1980).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
T hree terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area: disturbed
community, bottomland hardwood swamp, and mixed hardwood forest. Much of the
wildlife in the project study area likely use various communities for forage, cover, and
nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests
and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, such
that both are required for survival and reproduction.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community
This community encompasses four types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder, maintained yard, abandoned
field/trailer park, and abandoned cropland.
Roadside shoulder is a regularly maintained habitat that is kept in a low-growing,
early successional state. Herbs, grasses and vines located here include fescue (Festuca
sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), henbit (Lamium
amplexicaule), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild onion (Allium
canadense), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.),
and trailing dewberry (Rubus flagellaris).
Maintained yard is also a regularly maintained habitat. Species located here
include fescue, dandelion (Taraxacum offrcinale), wild onion, English plantain, and curly
dock (Rumex sp.).
Abandoned field/trailer park is located in the northeast quadrant of the project
study area. Herbs, grasses, and vines located here include goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
Japanese honeysuckle, broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), blackberry (Rubus sp.),
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and poison ivy (Rhus
radicans). Trees and shrubs observed in this community include silverling (Baccharis
halimifolia), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), red
maple (Acer rubrum), sumac (Rhus glabra), redbud (Cercis canadensis), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
Abandoned cropland is located in the northwest quadrant of the project study area.
Herbs, grasses, and vines located here include goldenrod, broom sedge, foxtail grass
(Alopecurus sp.), aster (Aster sp.), and fescue. The sapling and shrub layers consist of
sweetgum, privet (Ligustrum sp.), and china-berry (Melia azedarach).
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Swamp
This wetland community is located along Stoney Creek on the north side of the
bridge. The herbaceous layer is comprised of greenbrier, crossvine (Bignonia
capreolata), and seed box (Ludiwgea sp.). Trees and shrubs located in this community
include yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum, river birch (Betula nigra),
green ash, red maple, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), privet, giant cane, swamp chestnut
oak (Quercus michauxii), American holly (Ilex opaca), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), water oak (Quercus nigra), blackgum
(ltiyssa sylvatica), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and tag alder (Alnus serrulata).
9
3.1.3 Mixed Hardwood Forest
This upland community is located adjacent to the bottomland hardwood swamp.
The herbaceous layer consists of Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana). Trees and shrubs
observed in this community include green ash, laurel oak, sweetgum, giant cane, black
willow (Salix nigra), arrowwood (Viburnum sp.), American elm (Ulmus americana),
silverling, yellow poplar, black cherry (Prunus serotina), and sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, coastal plain perennial stream, is located in the
project study area. Physical characteristics of the surface waters and condition of the
water influence the faunal composition of the aquatic communities.
Perennial streams support an assemblage of fauna that require a constant source of
flowing water, as compared to intermittent or standing water. Amphibians and reptiles
commonly observed in and adjacent to swamps include three-lined salamander (Eurycea
guttolineata), two-lined salamander (E. bislineata), Mabee's salamander (Ambystoma
mabeei), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickeral frog (R. palustris), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer), and banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata').
Stoney Creek provides habitat for chain pickerel (Esox niger), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), madtom (Notorus sp.), and
eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).
3.3 Faunal Component
Much of the wildlife in the project area likely use various communities for forage,
cover, and nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of
forests and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, such that both are required for survival and reproduction.
The raccoon* (Procyon lotor) is a carnivore often observed along wetland habitats
to moist upland forests as well as urban areas. A raccoon track was observed in the
bottomland hardwood swamp. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are
occasionally observed along broken areas of mixed young forests, old fields, and crop
lands. These two ubiquitous species are often observed as roadkill on adjacent roadways.
The red fox* (Vulpes vulpes) prefers areas with interspersed croplands, woodlots, and old
fields. This species was observed as roadkill on the roadside shoulder. The beaver*
(Castor canaclensis) lives along small wooded streams which it often dams to form
shallow impoundments called beaver ponds. Stripped bark was observed in the
bottomland hardwood swamp and is an indicator of beaver habitat. Pigs* (Sus scrofa) are
i0
used for livestock purposes, but sometimes forage on vegetation in bottomland hardwood
forests along coastal plain rivers. Two pigs were observed foraging in the bottomland
hardwood swamp.
The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas
dominated by herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat. Eastern
cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer brushy edges where they primarily feed on
woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include southern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Shrews and smaller mice prefer forests with a thick layer
of leaf litter.
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) inhabit open habitats with plenty of sunlight. The slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus) inhabits woodlands where they are known to forage at night and
spend the day in burrows under logs, stones, and leaf litter. The southern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) is abundant under leaf litter and rotten logs in
swamps throughout the coastal plain. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) inhabits
woodlands where it may be observed under forest litter or brushy undergrowth. Eastern
box turtles (Terrapene carolina) are commonly observed throughout forested habitats
where they feed on plants and small animals.
The common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) is common in abandoned fields.
Blue jays (Cyannocitta cristata) and northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos) frequent
maintained yards. The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), northern parula (Parula americana), and blue-gray
gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) are often observed in wet, deciduous woods.
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community (Table 1). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire ROW width and length presented in Section 1.1. Usually, project construction
does not require the entire ROW width, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
11
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
In Place Temporary In Place In Place
Replacement Detour Replacement Replacement
Disturbed Community 0.3/0.8 0.10/0.25 0.3/0.8 0.3/0.8
Bot. Hardwood Swamp 0.04/0.09 0.0510.10 0.04/0.09 0.04/0.09
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.03/0.07 0.03/0.07 0.03/0.07 0.03/0.07
TOTAL (see note) 0.37/0.96 0.18/0.42 0.37/0.96 0.37/0.96
Notes:
-Values are cited in hectares/acres
-Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific community
due to rounding of significant digits.
-Alternate 1 In Place Replacement values indicate permanent impacts associated with
the removal and replacement of Bridge No. 164 and adjacent roadway approaches.
-Alternate 1 Temporary Detour values indicate temporary and permanent impacts
associated with the placement and subsequent removal of the temporary bridge and
roadway approaches.
-Alternate 2 In Place Replacement values indicate permanent impacts associated with
the removal and replacement of Bridge No. 164 and adjacent roadway approaches.
-Alternate 3 In Place Replacement values indicate permanent impacts associated with
the removal and replacement of Bridge No. 164 and adjacent roadway approaches.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of
project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter
habitat for fauna. A majority of the project study area is located in disturbed habitat.
This area is currently in a highly altered state and plants and animals here are well
adapted to disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in the disturbed community
are common throughout North Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed
habitats. Moreover, similar additional disturbed habitats will be re-established after
project construction.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area
as well as those downstream. Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly
attributable to construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are
magnified throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls must be maintained during the
entire life of the project.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level may severely
impact spawning activities of mobile and sessile organisms. Construction runoff and
l?
highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources
located in the project area.
Quantitative differences with regard to cumulative impacts in the proposed impact
width exist between alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 have reduced wetland impacts and
quantitative cumulative biotic community impacts when compared to Alternative 1.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
§328.3 (b), are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Surface
waters are waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and
flow of tides, all interstate waters including interstate wetlands, and all other waters such
as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes to place fill material into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Stoney Creek is considered jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. This system is thoroughly described in Section 2.2.2. Potential
jurisdictional wetland communities were examined pursuant to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The manual is a technical guideline for
wetlands. According to the manual, an area is considered a wetland if three parameters,
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrologic characteristics concurrently exist.
Based upon the results of the field investigation, the project area contains a jurisdictional
wetland.
Two systems are currently being used in North Carolina to describe or rate
wetlands: a classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) and a numerical
rating system developed by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM, 1995). The Cowardin system provides a uniform approach in describing concepts
and terms used in classifying wetland systems. The DEM rating scale gauges wetland
quality using a numerical rating system (0-100 with 100 being the highest value) that
emphasizes water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife
habitat, aquatic life values, and recreation/education potential. The DEM rating may be
13
revised when a wetland delineation is conducted at the project study area. A description
of the wetland site, Cowardin system classification and DEM rating are presented below.
Hardwood Forest. Irregularly Flooded: Dominant plants located here are listed in Section
3.1.2. The clay loam soil at this site exhibited a soil color of l OYR 4/2 with few distinct
mottles with color of 7:5YR 4/6 in the A layer. Observations of wetland hydrology
include inundation, saturation, drift lines, sediment deposits, water-stained leaves, and
drainage pattern in wetland. This variation has a Cowardin Classification of PFO1Cd and
a DEM rating of 69.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands. Both
temporary and permanent impacts to the bottomland hardwood swamp are clearly
summarized in Table 1. Stoney Creek is proposed to be bridged. Approximately 24 m
(80 ft) of Stoney Creek is located in the ROW of the In Place Replacement associated
with Alternates 1, 2, and 3. Approximately 18 in (60 ft) of Stoney Creek is located in the
ROW of the Temporary Detour associated with Alternate 1. The amount of wetland and
surface water impacts may be modified by any changes in roadway design.
There is the potential that components of the deck of Bridge No. 164 will be
dropped into waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the concrete deck associated with Bridge No. 164 is approximately 9 m'
(12 yd3). This project can be classified as Case 2, allowing no work at all in the water
during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas.
Construction impacts can severely affect the functions that wetlands perform in
an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and
storing storm water runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in
surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic
and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows through them. The
presence of wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants and
toxins.
4. 1.3 Permits
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from project construction.
In accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act §404, a permit will be required
from the USACE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." Due to surface water impacts expected at the project study area, a Nationwide 23
Permit will likely be necessary for this project. Final decision concerning applicable
permits rests with the USACE.
14
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ.
Section 401 of the C WA requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the
United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance
of a Section 404 or CAMA permit.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating
for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measure should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Impacts to the
wetland could be minimized by: (1) decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths; (2)
installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and. temporary ground cover during
construction; (3) strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands; and (4) reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands. Impacts to the bottomland
hardwood swamp can be minimized by choosing Alternate 2 or 3 rather than Alternate 1
since Alternate 1 involves construction in a larger area of the swamp than the other two
alternates.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
15
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable, adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
DWQ regulations state that fill or alteration of more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of
wetland will require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211
.0506(a) and (h) and fill or alteration of more than 450 linear in (150 linear ft) of streams
may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211 .0506(a) and
(h). If these acreage and linear thresholds are exceeded from project construction,
NCDOT will follow these regulations.
4.2 Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected, be subject to review by the FWS. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA. As of December 20, 1999, there is one
federally-protected species listed for Wayne County. The red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) has a status of endangered. Endangered species are a taxon in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
red-cockaded woodpecker
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palarstris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
16
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the
RCW is up to 200.0 hectares (500.0 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with
suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 in (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50 ft) high.
They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, in the form
of old growth pine forests, is not located in the project study area. There were no pines of
sufficient size and density located in the project study area or nearby vicinity. A review
of NHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations of
RCW within 1.0 km (1.6 mi) of the project study area. Impacts to this species will not
occur from project construction.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (F SC) are those plant and animal species which may
or may not be listed in the future. Five FSC are listed for Wayne County (Table 2).
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern.
Common Name Scientific Name NC Habitat
Status
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) SC (PT) Yes
rafinesquii
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus SR No
(PSC)
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T (PE) Yes
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis C No
Threatened (T) are native or once-native species of wild plant or animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. An Endangered (E) species is any native species or once-
native species of fauna or flora whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. Significantly rare (SR) species are
very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state. Special Concern
(SC) species require monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations
adopted under provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act. Candidate (C)
species are very rare in North Carolina, with 1-20 populations in the state, generally
substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction. Proposed (P ) species have been
17
formally proposed for listing as Endangered. Threatened, or Special Concern. but has not
yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
FSC species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T) or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given to state listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal
the presence of these species or unique habitats in or near the project study area. Surveys
for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were these
species observed during the site visit.
5.0 References
Amoroso; J.L. (ed.) 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goulet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of'the United States. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 1ldanual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. (eds.) 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and.
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, NC.
North Carolina Division of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1993. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
e,F
13
Quality. 2000. Stream Classifications Internet Home Page.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of'the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (3rd Approx.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County. Soil
Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill,
NC.